24-90 vs SL50

[proenca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm going back to the SL - I've used it and was lured back to the M system.

 

However, I miss the SL ; I miss the fantastic EVF, I miss the ability to get super sharp pictures ( I used my SL only with M lenses ), I miss the preview, the lovely video.

 

Heck, I miss the SL.

 

That said, I never had the 24-90 or the SL50 when I had the SL, just a good supply of my previous M lenses.

 

I'm selling my 50 Lux ASHP Chrome to fund the SL and a lens, and here comes the pickle - which one ?

 

24-90 : OIS, fantastic range, fast(ish) AF, super usable

SL50: bokeh. slower AF. bokeh.

 

I was lured, many moons and decades ago to the Leica system ( M at the time ) because Leica had super small, light lenses that were unbelivable sharp wide open.

 

Today I'm with Leica because I love Leica lenses and how they draw, but also how they fell in the hand - craftmanship.

 

I'm a 50mm guy and a sucker for bokeh.

 

I'm still keeping my 18mm SE, 28mm Summilux, apart frmo others ( Contax 50mm 1.4, Contax 85mm 1.4 and Contax 135 f2 ).

 

The SL alure is AF and optical masterpiece. The 24-90 is versatility.

 

There was someone who compared the 24-90 to a Noctilux at same object and while a silly thing to do, was fun to see.

 

Someone with the two lenses ( SL50 and 24-90 ) care to show the difference 1.4 vs 3.4 ( 24-90 at 50 ? ) ? How much do I lose in bokeh by gonig with the 24-90 ?

 

Also - SL50 was hammered when it was launched by the silly AF - how is today ? with FW3.0 and updated FW on the lens ? I know it wont be never as fast as the 24-90 or 90-280, but its decent now ?

 

My typical subject are my kids, family gatherings and such - and landscapes - or models.

[LocalHero1953]

As I read your post, I was thinking "this guy understands all the issues, there's nothing I can add here" - and I don't have the SL50.

Then I read your last line and I thought "it's obvious - why would you use anything other than the 24-90 for those subjects?".

 

Children on the move: I want zoom, dof and fast AF.

Family groups: I want variable wider angles and dof.

Landscapes: 50mm is a bit limiting in either direction. Also I don't usually want narrow dof and a lot of bokeh for landscapes.

Models: 50mm is too wide for headshots and often for upper body shots. Good bokeh is helpful, though.

 

So, IMO, and for your use, the SL50 is really only ahead, in practical terms, for certain portraits/model shots.

Edited October 3, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Clactonian]

Having just bought an SL to accompany my M240 I decided to add the 24-90 to give me maximum flexibility. I have a variety of fast primes for the M which work well on the SL and can give me the bokeh when desired, so to my mind I am now enjoying the best of both worlds.

[LD_50]

I would keep the 50 Lux ASPH and pickup the 24-90 (this is what I’ve done) or get both the 50SL and 24-90.

[proenca]

Thank for all the replies so far ; it's taking a bit of "brain rewire" to select the 24-90 - after decades of using M and 1.4 is the "norm" for bokeh-licious photos and even foraying at one point with the Noctilux - letting all that go for a Zoom ( Good forbid ! primes are the answer  ) and with a F3.5 / F4 aperture, is a lot to take in.

 

Rationally, indeed - it makes more sense and adds the flexibility for the SL ( zoom, decent AF ).

 

The lure of the SL50 is just way to big for a man who just loves bokeh and sharpness... Perhaps a SL50 and a leash to keep my kids still so the SL50 can focus ?

[caissa]

The SL 50 is fast enough for portrait. Certainly for grown-ups, maybe also for small children with their sometimes erratic gestures.

Just remember to "adjust" your "hit rate". It is definitely faster than manual focus.

Best try: Set camera to manual focus and use back button AF.  (Yes, really, works better than AFc)

And remember - it is not mandatory to take every shot at f 1.4 .

Edited October 4, 2017 by caissa

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own both lenses. If you are a 50mm guy and like shallow DOF, why not just go for the 50SL.

Of course the 24-90 is much more flexible, but it doesnt give you the bokeh and shallow DOF you get from the 50, if that is what you are after.

On the other side the 24-90 is one of the reasons I do own the SL.

[geetee1972]

You'll net maybe €1500 for the M 50mm Summilux. The price difference betwen the SL50 and the 24-90 is around €700. So in one scenario you have both the 24-90 and the M 50mm Lux and yes, an additional €700 cost. In the other, you have just the SL50mm, which is very sharp at the expense of micro-contrast.

 

Is that a hard decision?

[Guest VVJ]

You'll net maybe €1500 for the M 50mm Summilux. The price difference betwen the SL50 and the 24-90 is around €700. So in one scenario you have both the 24-90 and the M 50mm Lux and yes, an additional €700 cost. In the other, you have just the SL50mm, which is very sharp at the expense of micro-contrast.

 

Is that a hard decision?

 

You completely ignore the AF aspect of the equation (one of the reasons the OP is going back to the SL)... and with your opinion about the lack of micro-contrast in the 50mm and the 24-90mm I am afraid you might be on your own...

[dgktkr]

... In the other, you have just the SL50mm, which is very sharp at the expense of micro-contrast.

 

...

 

 

What am I missing? How can a lens be very sharp without having very good micro-contrast?

 

dgktkr

[lx1713]

Perhaps he means detailed but lacking the pop of strong micro-contrast. Some people do like portrait lenses with those characteristics 

[cpclee]

Micro contrast has to do with the transmission of very small structures. It is an objective and measurable quantity. Its measueeed by the lowest curve in the MTF charts. All native SL lenses trump earlier Leica lenses in that department. In particular they achieve micro contrast at wide open that were only attained by earlier lenses only when stopped down. There is no ambiguity or room for debate here.

[panoreserve]

You'll net maybe €1500 for the M 50mm Summilux. The price difference betwen the SL50 and the 24-90 is around €700. So in one scenario you have both the 24-90 and the M 50mm Lux and yes, an additional €700 cost. In the other, you have just the SL50mm, which is very sharp at the expense of micro-contrast.

 

Is that a hard decision?

 

 "...the SL50mm, which is very sharp at the expense of micro-contrast."

 O no, geetee 1972,  there you go again!

[lx1713]

I was thinking more about what he might mean, not disagreeing with technical terms. I tend to think in terms of overall imagery. Afraid I wasn't thinking of my precision in jargon   

[cpclee]

I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I just felt we need to calibrate the vocabulary first so we are not talking apples and oranges

 

Sharpness is an ambiguous term because it actually depends on both contrast and resolution and is perceptive than objective. Contrast, resolution and micro contrast on the other hand are totally well defined, objective and measurable (and hence non debateable).

 

I was thinking more about what he might mean, not disagreeing with technical terms. I tend to think in terms of overall imagery. Afraid I wasn't thinking of my precision in jargon

[PeterGA]

Go to your lightroom library or whatever DAM software you use and run a filter through your photographs and compare the focal lengths used as a percentage of teh total shots you have decided to store. If there is an even spread of usage history between 24-90 ish then the zoom is your lens. If like many your useage is dominated by a particular focal length say 50mm - then you have your 'safe' answer. It all depends on what your favourite focal length(s) are if you are choosing a starter lens.

 

Cheers

Pete

[geetee1972]

 

You completely ignore the AF aspect of the equation

 

Fair point but I didn't ignore it. I was acknowledging that in one scenario you have both one of the best 50mm lenses ever made (albeit manual focus) and a reportedly excellent AF zoom with OIS for a marginal cost of EUR700 and in the other you just have an AF 50mm. I would think that having spent a lot of time manually focusing lenses, continuing to use one would not be a hinderance if the OP also had access to an AF lens.

 

 

What am I missing? How can a lens be very sharp without having very good micro-contrast?

 

I'm not an optician, I'm an aesthete and a psychologist so I have no idea and it may well be that what I call micro-contrast isn't what you call it or what optical engineers call it. But I can see the difference and someone on the Leica SL FB forum has explained it to me in really excellent terms. It's the compromise between having subtlty in tonal reproduction and a flatter contrast and sharpness and high global contrast, which this person explains as being the delineation between Mandler and Karbe designed lenses. It makes sense to me from an aesthetic point of view as that's precisely what I see as the weakness of the 50SL. But I understand that for some/a lot of people, the thing they care most about is how sharp a lens is.

 

There are really good discussion on it here:

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

 

 

There is no ambiguity or room for debate here.

 

Again you can call what you want to call whatever you like. There is a world of difference in how one lens renders a scene versus another and that difference needs a name. In this instance I think it's micro contrast but it could also be called 'tonal palete' or 'tonal range' on 'tonal subtelty', i.e. the ability to represent a smoother and more gradual change in tonal contrast, this being critical to offering a more natural rendering of a scene.

[sillbeers15]

Fair point but I didn't ignore it. I was acknowledging that in one scenario you have both one of the best 50mm lenses ever made (albeit manual focus) and a reportedly excellent AF zoom with OIS for a marginal cost of EUR700 and in the other you just have an AF 50mm. I would think that having spent a lot of time manually focusing lenses, continuing to use one would not be a hinderance if the OP also had access to an AF lens.

 

 

I'm not an optician, I'm an aesthete and a psychologist so I have no idea and it may well be that what I call micro-contrast isn't what you call it or what optical engineers call it. But I can see the difference and someone on the Leica SL FB forum has explained it to me in really excellent terms. It's the compromise between having subtlty in tonal reproduction and a flatter contrast and sharpness and high global contrast, which this person explains as being the delineation between Mandler and Karbe designed lenses. It makes sense to me from an aesthetic point of view as that's precisely what I see as the weakness of the 50SL. But I understand that for some/a lot of people, the thing they care most about is how sharp a lens is.

 

There are really good discussion on it here:

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

 

 

Again you can call what you want to call whatever you like. There is a world of difference in how one lens renders a scene versus another and that difference needs a name. In this instance I think it's micro contrast but it could also be called 'tonal palete' or 'tonal range' on 'tonal subtelty', i.e. the ability to represent a smoother and more gradual change in tonal contrast, this being critical to offering a more natural rendering of a scene.

In my opinion, the SL50 is kind of like the apoM50. A clinically sharp and produces very realistic images. Wherelse the Noctilux 0.95 M50 renders a more punchy 3D 'strike out of the OOF' effect that is dramatic (which many of us love) which isn't so real. The choice is subjective.

[cpclee]

The link you cited seems to confuse two different concepts. See

 

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln30_en_web_special_mtf_01.pdf

 

And the follow on article for a more scientific and authoritative explanation

 

Microcontrast is about the ability of a lens to render spatially nearby details as distinct. It has to do with resolution and fine structures. It is not the same as the ability to render tonally nearby hues as distinct. Tonal acuity actually has more to do with macro contrast. A lens that lets through as much light as it can without loss or compression will necessarily have high macro contrast and a wide palette of tonal values. (Macro contrast is the difference between the lightest and darkest values.)

 

Fair point but I didn't ignore it. I was acknowledging that in one scenario you have both one of the best 50mm lenses ever made (albeit manual focus) and a reportedly excellent AF zoom with OIS for a marginal cost of EUR700 and in the other you just have an AF 50mm. I would think that having spent a lot of time manually focusing lenses, continuing to use one would not be a hinderance if the OP also had access to an AF lens.

 

 

I'm not an optician, I'm an aesthete and a psychologist so I have no idea and it may well be that what I call micro-contrast isn't what you call it or what optical engineers call it. But I can see the difference and someone on the Leica SL FB forum has explained it to me in really excellent terms. It's the compromise between having subtlty in tonal reproduction and a flatter contrast and sharpness and high global contrast, which this person explains as being the delineation between Mandler and Karbe designed lenses. It makes sense to me from an aesthetic point of view as that's precisely what I see as the weakness of the 50SL. But I understand that for some/a lot of people, the thing they care most about is how sharp a lens is.

 

There are really good discussion on it here:

 

http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world

 

 

Again you can call what you want to call whatever you like. There is a world of difference in how one lens renders a scene versus another and that difference needs a name. In this instance I think it's micro contrast but it could also be called 'tonal palete' or 'tonal range' on 'tonal subtelty', i.e. the ability to represent a smoother and more gradual change in tonal contrast, this being critical to offering a more natural rendering of a scene.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[blacksinner]

i would kep the lux 50mm. since its your primary lens, its should be small and lighter. 50 SL is too big for primary use. 24-90mm is fantastic all round lens. those 2 lenses is actually cover everything. sell all the contax except 135mm if it doesn't mean anything to you.